IRC log of swd on 2008-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:51:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swd
15:51:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc
15:51:39 [TomB]
rrsagent, bookmark
15:51:39 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T15-51-39
15:51:57 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
15:52:43 [TomB]
zakim, this will be swd
15:52:43 [Zakim]
ok, TomB; I see SW_SWD()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:50 [TomB]
Meeting: SWD WG
15:52:53 [TomB]
Chair: Tom
15:53:07 [TomB]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0001.html
15:53:19 [TomB]
Previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html
15:53:29 [TomB]
Regrets: Daniel, Jon, Ben, Ed, Diego
15:55:36 [Ralph]
regrets+ Quentin
15:56:23 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has now started
15:56:30 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:57:02 [TomB]
zakim, ??p4 is TomB
15:57:02 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
15:58:10 [Zakim]
+Ralph
16:01:13 [seanb]
seanb has joined #swd
16:02:06 [Zakim]
+??P37
16:02:39 [TomB]
zakim, ??p37 is TomB
16:02:39 [Zakim]
+TomB; got it
16:02:43 [Zakim]
-TomB.a
16:02:56 [Zakim]
-TomB
16:03:05 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swd
16:04:05 [Zakim]
+??P18
16:04:19 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p18 is Alistair
16:04:19 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
16:04:36 [Antoine]
Antoine has joined #swd
16:04:44 [Zakim]
+Tom_Baker
16:05:08 [Zakim]
+??P9
16:05:14 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swd
16:05:23 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p9 is Antoine
16:05:23 [Zakim]
+Antoine; got it
16:05:29 [TomB]
zakim, please mute me
16:05:29 [Zakim]
Tom_Baker should now be muted
16:05:49 [TomB]
please unmute me
16:05:54 [Zakim]
+??P21
16:06:02 [seanb]
zakim, ??P21 is me
16:06:02 [Zakim]
+seanb; got it
16:06:16 [aliman]
zakim, unmute tom
16:06:16 [Zakim]
Tom_Baker should no longer be muted
16:07:29 [Ralph]
scribe: Ralph
16:07:42 [Ralph]
Topic: Admin
16:07:58 [Ralph]
RESOLVED to accept minutes of the last telecon http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html
16:08:06 [Ralph]
next telecon in 2 weeks; 18 Nov
16:08:32 [Ralph]
Topic: RDFa
16:08:48 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
16:08:52 [Zakim]
+??P44
16:09:07 [Ralph]
-- continues
16:09:10 [Ralph]
Topic: Recipes
16:09:37 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: diego propose resolutions to remaining recipes issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/14-swd-minutes.html#action02]
16:10:04 [Ralph]
Tom: let's wait for Diego and Jon to be at a telecon before taking up those proposals
16:10:16 [Ralph]
-> @@ Diego's proposal
16:10:29 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Ralph/Diego to work on Wordnet implementation [of Recipes implementations] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action20]
16:10:38 [TomB]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html
16:11:06 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0003.html [Recipes] proposed resolution for remaing issues [Deigo 2008-11-03]
16:11:16 [Zakim]
-??P44
16:11:31 [Ralph]
Topic: SWD Review of OWL WDs
16:11:35 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus to look at OWL documents for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:11:44 [Ralph]
Topic: SKOS
16:12:12 [Ralph]
Ben: I believe we resolved last telecon to close several issues per msg 222
16:12:19 [Ralph]
s/Ben:/Tom:
16:12:29 [Ralph]
Sean: we were waiting for responses from the commentors
16:12:42 [Guus]
[my phone is out of power, sorry]
16:14:11 [Ralph]
Antoine: it might confuse the commenter if we close an issue before getting their response
16:14:27 [aliman]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
16:15:04 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html Alistair's review of 23 Oct issue proposals
16:15:27 [Ralph]
Alistair: can we resolve a batch of issues as I propose in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html ?
16:15:44 [Ralph]
Antoine: issue 134 should be included in your batch
16:15:59 [aliman]
PROPOSED: to resolve issues 140, 141, 146, 133, 134, 144, 145, 149, 150,
16:16:01 [aliman]
152, 162, 160, 171, 172, 178 and 180 (part 1) as described in
16:16:02 [aliman]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
16:16:40 [marghe]
marghe has joined #swd
16:17:17 [Ralph]
Antoine: I've read each one and am satisfied with the proposal
16:17:33 [Ralph]
Sean: I'm happy with Alistair's proposal
16:17:41 [Zakim]
+Margherita_Sini
16:18:12 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swd
16:18:14 [Ralph]
Antoine: for issue 160 I proposed to add an invitation to Doug to post something but OK to proceed
16:19:10 [Ralph]
Alistair: in order: 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172
16:19:18 [Ralph]
... 178, and the first part of 180
16:19:49 [Ralph]
... I propose to agree on the response to the comment
16:21:10 [Ralph]
PROPOSED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
16:21:34 [Ralph]
Sean: if the commentors agree with our response then our resolution here is to close or pospone the respective issue
16:21:54 [Ralph]
RESOLVED respond to issues 133, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 160, 162, 171, 172, 178, and the first part of 180 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0287.html
16:22:38 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus and Jeremy to give concrete implementation examples of the use of rdfs:label w/ SKOS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-swd-minutes.html#action10]
16:22:51 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Antoine to propose revised answers for issues 181-185 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action01]
16:23:18 [GuusS]
pls continue my action wrt Issue 186, will be completed this week
16:23:51 [Ralph]
Antoine: I sent these proposals last week
16:24:23 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html ISSUE-181 new draft response
16:24:36 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html ISSUE-182 new draft response
16:24:49 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response
16:25:04 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html ISSUE-185 new draft response
16:25:18 [Ralph]
[CONTINUES] ACTION: Guus to propose answer for issue 186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action02]
16:25:25 [Ralph]
[DONE]ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
16:25:29 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Sean and Alistair to send answers wrt. the editorial issues resolved on 21-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-swd-minutes.html#action07]
16:25:38 [Ralph]
Sean: see a slew of email on 22 October
16:25:49 [Antoine]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html ISSUE-184 new draft
16:26:27 [TomB]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Nov/0010.html
16:26:45 [aliman]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0270.html -> draft response on 151
16:26:48 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/151 issue 151; skos:member definition
16:27:26 [Ralph]
Alistair: none of the commentors have demanded a range but Jeremy has noted that there is an effective range
16:27:40 [Ralph]
... I propose to not explicitly define a range
16:28:23 [GuusS]
Ii;ve made progress in reviewing OWL docs, and talked to Ian at ISWC about timing SWD comments
16:28:32 [Ralph]
... I can live with either approach (defining or not defining)
16:28:46 [Ralph]
Antoine: I'm rather in favor of defining a range
16:28:48 [Antoine]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0290.html
16:29:11 [Ralph]
Sean: Antoine has arguments for including a range, not seeing arguments against it
16:29:25 [Ralph]
Alistair: the argument against is to leave flexibility
16:29:35 [Ralph]
Antoine: in the case of collections, I think we gain from adding constraints
16:29:53 [Ralph]
Sean: we've included ranges in other places, so why the need for flexibility here?
16:30:19 [Ralph]
... for consistency in the text, make it clear that collections are collections of concepts
16:30:40 [Ralph]
Alistair: the original document did not say "collections *of concepts*"; it only said "collections"
16:31:07 [Ralph]
... there are other cases of flexiblity; e.g. no domain for @@
16:31:19 [aliman]
s/@@/skos:inScheme/
16:31:20 [Ralph]
... we've not chosen to have domains and/or ranges for everything
16:32:23 [Ralph]
Tom: coherence of specs, coherence of data all sound good but I don't think anything is harmed by leaving it unspecified
16:32:58 [Ralph]
Ralph: I hear Antoine saying it would be useful
16:34:29 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of of skos:Concept and skos:Collection
16:34:44 [aliman]
s/of of/of/
16:35:00 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: we define the range of skos:member as the union of skos:Concept and skos:Collection
16:35:28 [Ralph]
Alistair: I'll redraft and send the response
16:35:46 [Ralph]
-- issue 180
16:35:47 [TomB]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0282.html
16:35:58 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180 issue 180
16:36:08 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/180 issue 180; PFWG: skosxl:Label class
16:36:17 [Ralph]
Alistair: this is about the extensibility of the vocabulary
16:36:39 [Ralph]
... PFWG would like to extend the xl:Label class to be able to specify labels in other modalities
16:36:55 [Ralph]
... e.g. in other markup languages; MathML, etc.
16:37:08 [Ralph]
... currently we require that every instance of xl:Label have a plain literal form
16:38:07 [Ralph]
... should we relax this restriction, e.g. from "exactly one [plain literal form]" to "at most one"?
16:39:12 [Ralph]
Tom: I prefer solution 1, our current solution
16:39:43 [Ralph]
Alistair: saying "at most one" would still permit "dumbing-down"
16:40:08 [Ralph]
Antoine: do both really support dumbing-down?
16:40:21 [Ralph]
Alistair: if there is no plain literal form then there are no entailments
16:40:32 [GuusSch]
GuusSch has joined #swd
16:40:39 [Ralph]
Antoine: so SKOSXL might not provide data that is compatible with standard SKOS tools
16:41:34 [Ralph]
Alistair: correct, but the PFWG scenarios do not provide data useable by standard SKOS tools and we wouldn't want those tools to dumb-down
16:42:17 [Ralph]
Antoine: I prefer option 1; live with the current XL data model
16:42:30 [Ralph]
... this is consistent with our resolution on symbolic labels, which is related
16:42:39 [TomB]
+1 with Antoine - go with option 1
16:43:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: I suspect that if we keep the restriction and folks find good reason to violate it the world won't fall apart :)
16:43:35 [Ralph]
Alistair: I may hold you to this at some point in the future :)
16:43:52 [Ralph]
Antoine: I can see a use for more than one resource form attached to a label
16:44:24 [Ralph]
PROPOSED: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the restriction on xl:label
16:44:33 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: retain the current XL data model; make no change to the restriction on xl:label
16:44:47 [Ralph]
s/:label/:Label
16:44:56 [Ralph]
-- issue 181
16:45:23 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0226.html ISSUE-181 new draft response [Antoine 2008-10-22]
16:45:59 [Ralph]
Antoine: this is about what might be allowed to be introduced in concept schemes
16:46:07 [Ralph]
... there was a requirement that we dropped
16:46:21 [Ralph]
... we discussed this in issue 48 and dropped the indexing
16:46:32 [Ralph]
... I propose a practice to solve the issue in specific cases
16:46:56 [Ralph]
... I suggested to Michael to consider proposing a practice
16:47:03 [Ralph]
Alistair: I'm happy with Antoine's response
16:47:40 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/181 issue 181; Non Assignable Concepts
16:47:58 [Ralph]
Tom: I'm happy with the response as drafted
16:48:01 [Ralph]
-- issue 182
16:48:13 [Ralph]
Antoine: the problem here is to attach classes to concepts
16:48:21 [Ralph]
... would look a bit like indexing
16:48:22 [TomB]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0227.html ISSUE-182 new draft response
16:48:56 [Ralph]
... I propose to make no change but again suggest a practice that could be used
16:49:33 [Ralph]
Alistair: could we say that this be resolveed within a community of practice without giving specific practices?
16:49:43 [Ralph]
... Michael is effectively proposing some extensions
16:50:03 [Ralph]
... could we say that we agree these are important areas and that we look forward to proposed practices from the community?
16:50:28 [Ralph]
... we look forward to seeing this requirement addressed by third-party extensions
16:50:44 [Ralph]
... noting that Michael's suggestions might be good candidates for such third-party extensions
16:50:55 [Ralph]
Antoine: so use the word 'extension' explicitly in the response?
16:51:11 [Ralph]
Alistair: yes, this requirement is out of scope for SKOS but can be dealt with by extensions
16:51:30 [Ralph]
... be more positive; we acknowledge that this is an important requirement
16:51:49 [Ralph]
Tom: could have boilerplate text, as this comes up in a number of cases
16:52:11 [Ralph]
Alistair: yes, I've tried to be consistent in the language I use
16:52:29 [Ralph]
Antoine: I'd be happy for Alistair's help in drafting the language of the response
16:52:59 [Ralph]
ACTION: Antoine post new draft response for issue 182
16:53:44 [Ralph]
drop action 2
16:54:15 [TomB]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response
16:54:16 [Ralph]
Antoine: I just need to reformulate the last paragraph of the responses for issues 181 and 182
16:54:57 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: close issue 182 without changing the specification
16:55:30 [Ralph]
-- issue 183
16:55:41 [Ralph]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0228.html ISSUE-183 new draft response
16:55:54 [Ralph]
Antoine: this was a case of a classification scheme and a concept scheme co-existing
16:56:17 [Ralph]
... I suggest this is an unusual use case and that we not try to adapt the SKOS standard to handle this
16:57:08 [Ralph]
... and again note a possible practice for using SKOS classes and concepts, suggesting Michael use that practice if it is useful
16:57:23 [Ralph]
Alistair: I try to word my responses to avoid stimulating a long conversation
16:57:47 [Ralph]
... try to elicit a "yes, I can live with the Group's decision" response
16:58:59 [Ralph]
Antoine: I can extract the essential details
16:59:15 [Ralph]
Tom: sounds like we agree on the substance, though
16:59:51 [Ralph]
Antoine: I felt that this commentor really wanted to be convinced that a solution could be found
17:00:38 [Ralph]
Tom: shall we leave it to Antoine's discretion?
17:00:41 [Ralph]
Alistair: sure
17:00:59 [TomB]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0304.html ISSUE-184 new draft
17:01:05 [Ralph]
-- issue 184
17:01:45 [Ralph]
Antoine: Michael objected that skos:notation wouldn't handle the case
17:01:51 [Ralph]
... I gave an example of using private notations
17:02:21 [Ralph]
... so the response is long just to illustrate the solution
17:03:08 [Ralph]
Alistair: the core of the response is that we acknowledge the utility of the case but that it's out of scope for SKOS
17:03:16 [Ralph]
Antoine: however, SKOS can do what he wants
17:03:29 [TomB]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0230.html ISSUE-185 new draft response
17:03:41 [Ralph]
-- issue 185
17:04:14 [Ralph]
Antoine: the commentor wanted a way to distinguish order of children
17:05:03 [Ralph]
... my proposed response is that we did not have a use case for this and that ordering is difficult to express in RDF
17:05:14 [Ralph]
... an alternative is to use ordered collections
17:06:12 [Ralph]
Alistair: we could also refer to a previous issue where we resolved that capturing all of the information one might want to display is out of scope
17:06:22 [Ralph]
... some parallel coding might be necessary
17:06:32 [Ralph]
Antoine: have we discussed ordering for systematic display?
17:06:56 [Ralph]
Alistair: not, but we agreed that SKOS does not have to capture all the information needed for a systematic display
17:08:27 [Ralph]
PROPOSE: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's discretion
17:08:55 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: we accept Antoine's proposed responses for issues 181, 182, 183, 184, and 185 with stylistic adjustments at Antoine's discretion
17:09:26 [Ralph]
Alistair: so Antoine will post the responses to the commentor when he's ready
17:09:29 [Ralph]
[adjourned]
17:09:34 [Zakim]
-seanb
17:09:39 [Zakim]
-Alistair
17:09:41 [Zakim]
-Antoine
17:09:53 [Zakim]
-Ralph
17:09:55 [Zakim]
-Tom_Baker
17:09:56 [marghe]
marghe has left #swd
17:10:00 [Zakim]
-Margherita_Sini
17:10:02 [Zakim]
SW_SWD()11:00AM has ended
17:10:03 [Zakim]
Attendees were TomB, Ralph, Alistair, Tom_Baker, Antoine, seanb, Margherita_Sini
17:10:09 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:10:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-minutes.html Ralph
17:11:23 [aliman]
thanks all, best wishes for good outcome to US election tonight :)
17:11:28 [Ralph]
:)
17:29:58 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
17:29:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swd
17:30:00 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
17:30:00 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-actions.rdf :
17:30:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02] [1]
17:30:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T16-08-48
17:30:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Antoine post new draft response for issue 182 [2]
17:30:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-swd-irc#T16-52-59